[ncdnhc-discuss] Resolution on ORG Divestiture

[Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales]

George,  Milton and all:

Milton Mueller wrote:

> George:
> I look forward to your attendance at the
> NCDNHC meeting. I think you will get a much
> more realistic assessment of what this constituency
> has accomplished and can accomplish.

I am  looking for the same and I hope that many other's can also
come to NCDNHC meeting in Marina del Rey.

> You are a well known and respected member
> of the noncommercial community. Have you
> considered running for Names Council?

Good idea :-)

> By way of contrast, snap votes and straw
> polls called in the middle of a discussion
> without proper warning or a predictable
> time table are an unfair and unrepresentative
> sample. The type of vote Vany is trying to
> hold typically gets about 10 participants.

I am not calling for any special vote.  I am calling to finish what we
begun
as Initial Position of .ORG.  Since the document sent in July states
that it is
not finished yet and that still such document is not official position
of the NCDNHC
then a vote might be run on it, statement by statement since the
document itself
allows it do it.  I look forward the participation in such votation of
all members of the
NCDNHC because, as I said before, in the elaboration of this document
participated more
or less 20 persons only and we are more than 100 members.   I repeat, I
am not calling for an special vote.  I am calling to the
accomplishment of a legimit right of every member of the NCDNHC  to vote
in order to send official positions
outside the NCDNHC by means of votation (not as an special, but as a
regular procedure).

Also this specific document of .ORG has the special characteristic that
have to be voted statement by statement
because have the peculiarity that people would agree with some
statements and some not.  The advantage of voting resolutions
statement by statement is that always you can deliver a positive answer
because we have the freedom to say: we are agree with
such and such paragraph and we are not agree with such and such
paragraph.   If we take it as a whole we limit ourselves in
really improove the things that we are not agree.   Should I vote "NO"
to a whole document only because I am not agree with
one statement when the document has ten statements?  This is not right.
The NCDNHC members deserves to have voice and
vote in every statement that the NCDNHC will send as an official
position.

Also I am sure that many members are still waiting for voting on such
statements, as me, and I haven't had given the chance to execute my
right of vote as a member of the NCDNHC.

Best Regards
Vany






--
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
e-mail: vany at sdnp.org.pa
http://www.sdnp.org.pa